On 6 September 2012 23:40, Andrew Barnham <andrew.barnham@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Scratch that. An immediate show stopping pitfall occurs to me: the necessity > to match CPU/OS Architecture between primary server and replicate target. > Doubtful that there are any consumer NAS products out there running linux on > 64bit/intel Hi I have a super cheapskate rig along those lines at home, doing replication among other things: I used an HP Microserver (not marketed as a 'consumer NAS' exactly, but the same general idea: a low cost black cube with drives bays, SATA ports, a small amount of ECC RAM and a low power dual core amd64 CPU). I run Debian GNU/Linux and have a bunch of PostgreSQL databases, backups and virtual machines on it. My goals were: cheap to buy, cheap to run, reasonably reliable, quiet, small, inoffensive to the eye. I filled it up with 'green' 5400RPM drives that I had spare from another project, configured software RAID arrays with XFS on top, and put it on a shelf to run headless. A friend has the same box but runs FreeNAS on it so he can use ZFS and swears by it (he also added a 4 x 2.5" adaptor to be able to reach the maximum of 8 drives, which I think requires adding a controller card, whereas I used the 5.25" bay for a 5th 3.5" drive). The machines were going for around 150 GBP when I bought, and I added some RAM. Last time I measured it it was drawing around 50W (a bit more when busy, a bet less when idle), which works out to under 50 quid a year to run at London retail electricity prices, comparable to a light bulb. This is surely about the slowest database hardware money can buy, but handles my hobbiest databases (~1TB for the largest) and a bunch of streaming replicas and backups from remote servers just fine. I haven't checked, but I would expect it to be the slowest build farm member... Thomas Munro -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
